KyivPost

Fighting Irish: Who owns a landmark asset?

Print version
Nov. 24, 2011, 8:33 p.m. | Business — by Mark Rachkevych

A foreign majority shareholder of the $50 million, 45,000 square-meter Ukraina shopping center on Kyiv’s Victory Square says it cannot take control of the place because of former managers and Ukraine’s courts.
© UNIAN

Mark Rachkevych

Mark has been a reporter for the Kyiv Post since 2006, but joined full-time in 2009. A native Chicagoan where he was the co-founder of the now defunct Glasshouse Magazine, Mark currently is an editor of business news and still contributes stories on an ongoing basis. He is a former U.S. Peace Corps volunteer, a graduate of St. Norbert College in Wisconsin, and fluent in the Ukrainian and Russian languages.

SEE ALSO
A battle has broken out in Kyiv for control of two prime commercial properties.
Announcement To Readers

Since 1995, the Kyiv Post has been the world's window on Ukraine. Please support the newspaper’s quality, independent journalism with a digital subscription. Subscribers receive unlimited access to all stories, archives and PDFs from the Kyiv Post's staff writers and news services.
More info.

12 months
1 month
$50.00Pay $20.00Pay
The Kyiv Post is hosting comments to foster lively debate. Criticism is fine, but stick to the issues. Comments that include profanity or personal attacks will be removed from the site. If you think that a posted comment violates these standards, please flag it and alert us. We will take steps to block violators.
Anonymous Nov. 25, 2011, 6 a.m.    

"Burly" guards.... not in the photo! ;)

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Nov. 25, 2011, 5:18 p.m.    

There was a constitutional court judge named Susanna Stanik, whom Yushchenko at one time removed, because Susanna's mother suddenly became the beneficiary of a lot of property and wealth, while the constitutional court was considering a particular matter.

Is Serhiy Stanik, another judge involved in the Fighting Irish case, any ralation to Susanna Stanik?

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Nov. 26, 2011, 6:35 p.m.    

no sure is there is a relationship. HOWEVER it needs to be stated that the courts rightly ruled that Yushchenko's attempt to remove Susanna Stanik was illegal.

Yushchenko's interference in the independence and operation of Ukraine's Constitutional Court in 2007 was unconstitutional. It was designed to prevent the courts from ruling against Yushchenko's unlawful and unconstitutional dismissal of Ukraine's previous Parliament. Yushchenko's illegal action in 2007 undermined confidence in the democratic system and caused seven months of political and civil unrest.

.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Nov. 26, 2011, 6:40 p.m.    

Susanna Stanik was cleared of any wrong doing and she was re-instated to the Constitutional Court bench. Later to resign of her own volition.

Yushchenko should have been held to account for his actions, his misuse and abuse of power and breach of Ukraine's Constitution. Had he been in a functioning western democracy he would have faced impeachment for his actions.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Nov. 26, 2011, 6:28 p.m.    

Like any settlement of a divorced estate is that they put the assets on the open market and sell them to the highest bidder. The value of the asset is then paid in proportion to the shareholders investment and subsequently used to pay off any debts. The rights of minority shareholders are equal to that of majority shareholders. It would be wrong to use the value of minor shareholding to off set the losses of the majority shareholders other business interests.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Nov. 26, 2011, 6:52 p.m.    

The majority shareholder need to either buy out the minority shareholder or seek court approval for a fore sale mortgagee auction. This sort of shareholder ownership dispute can and does happen in the west. It is also a common means of holding back creditors that seek to foreclose and in doing so devalue the assets of the holding company to the disadvantage of minority shareholders. It is also a tactic used by an unsecured creditor to secure the money owed to them. They company needs to settle the debt claim in order to secure free unencumbered title. I am not sure there is anything unbetold in this case other that the parties excising their legal rights

{# <-- parent id goes here

KyivPost

© 1995–2014 Public Media

Web links to Kyiv Post material are allowed provided that they contain a URL hyperlink to the www.kyivpost.com material and a maximum 500-character extract of the story. Otherwise, all materials contained on this site are protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced without the prior written permission of Public Media at news@kyivpost.com
All information of the Interfax-Ukraine news agency placed on this web site is designed for internal use only. Its reproduction or distribution in any form is prohibited without a written permission of Interfax-Ukraine.